Arrangement of Business
Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will make a few remarks before Committee. I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussions and kind words this week. I understand and empathise with the concerns that have been raised about the suggestion that the House would sit beyond 3 pm. I am striving to find an approach to minimise the impact on the House. I have looked seriously at all the options. It is very difficult. The options I was presented with last week were that the House should sit from 7 pm to 10 pm on a Thursday or earlier on a Friday. I discussed these suggestions with the usual channels and the Clerk Assistant. I am grateful for their advice and that of the noble Lords who put these suggestions forward.
I am also conscious that the House accepted a Motion from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton that more time is needed to scrutinise the Bill. There is no easy solution or an option that is acceptable to the whole House. The Bill will remain a Private Member’s Bill. No government time will be allocated for the Bill. Therefore, it is right that it is considered on Fridays only. I know that some noble Lords would prefer to sit later on a Thursday, but I am mindful of the pressure the late night would put on the House and the staff, especially when we have another sitting Friday the following day. I do not think that is the right course of action.
I also spoke to the House authorities about sitting early on a Friday, but for many teams of staff this would increase the pressure to be here even earlier in the morning to ensure that the House is prepared to sit at 9 am. I do not think that sitting earlier than 10 am would ensure that we are in the best position to scrutinise the Bill.
As a result, and as I have set out previously, I will not seek to adjourn the House at 3 pm today but will seek to do so at around 6 pm. Of course, this is a matter for the House and not for me as Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. It remains in the hands of noble Lords and the House. Any noble Lord may seek an earlier adjournment by moving the Motion that the House be resumed.
My door remains open to all noble Lords to discuss matters concerning the Bill. I have also heard concerns about the pressure that longer days put on noble Lords who wish to debate most or all of the groups within the target, and I have been asked about a lunch break. I am happy to facilitate a break that would adjourn the House during pleasure for around 40 minutes at 1 pm. That might require breaking mid-group, although I hope it will not be the case.
I put on record my thanks to the staff of the House—those who are here today and those who have been working ahead to ensure that our debates take place today. At all times when we consider this Bill, we should have at the front of our minds kindness, courtesy and respect, the hallmark of our debates in this Chamber, especially when we are debating the Bill before us today. With that, I think we should turn to the substance of the Bill and make more progress on it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord kindly allowed a number of us to make representations to him during the week, saying that his door was always open. Indeed it was, and I thank him for that. However, I raised the point last week that for those of us who do not live in London, running to 6 pm or thereabouts means that it is impossible for most of us to get home, requiring us to stay over until Saturday. Given that this is a Private Member’s Bill, given the pattern that has been adopted on Private Members’ Bills since I have been here and given that we are effectively discriminating against a group of people who do not live in the local area, as a matter of principle that is a mistake. If we allow it to happen on a regular basis, people who are not resident in the south-east of England are put at a disadvantage.
I understand the point about leaving early and not observing the normal courtesies, but if you table an amendment, the point is to hear the response of the Minister and the promoter of the Bill. It is not an ad hoc thing where you can drift off at a certain point in time. Without any doubt, this decision means that those who have to travel a significant distance from this House to get home every week are at a disadvantage. That is a precedent. It might be those of us who live further away today, but it could be a different group of people next time. I think that is a mistake.
I am not satisfied to leave this as it sits. I would not like to be in a situation where people were bouncing up and down to ask the House to resume as some ad hoc arrangement. It should be a situation that is agreed with the promoter of the Bill so that we do not have this business of people doing a count around the Chamber to see whether they can get the House resumed. We should have a more mature and professional way of doing business. I leave the point with the Chief Whip that this discriminates deliberately against people who do not reside in this area.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I have huge respect for the noble Lord and thank him very much for the kind way in which he dealt with our discussion this week. That is why I said last week that colleagues could leave earlier if they had to travel back home. I fully accept the noble Lord’s point that when someone moves their amendment, they want to hear the response. If noble Lords find that they have to leave because of travel arrangements and cannot hear the response from the Minister, I am very happy to arrange for them to have a meeting or briefing to go through that response, rather than them having to read it in Hansard. I am trying to find ways to square an almost impossible circle here, but I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments.
Arrangement of Business
Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start further consideration in Committee of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, I wish to make a short statement. I emailed all Peers on Wednesday afternoon to set out my position in light of the agreement to the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, which was agreed last Thursday in this House. I will briefly set out the headlines again to assist the House.
Noble Lords clearly accepted the proposition last week that more time was needed to scrutinise the Bill. I have taken time to consider all the options and discuss them with the noble and learned Lord, other noble Lords, the usual channels and the House administration. In coming to my recommended position, careful consideration has been given to the impact that additional time would have on the House staff, Members and government legislation.
We have always been clear that the Government are neutral, and that will not change. I also confirmed last week that additional time for the Bill will not be provided in time used for government legislation or other important House matters. Fridays therefore remain the only opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, which is a Private Member’s Bill.
Rather than seeking to adjourn the House at 3 pm today, as I have in previous weeks, in light of the Motion I will seek to adjourn the House at around 5.30 pm today and at 6 pm on subsequent Fridays that have already been allocated. I understand that some noble Lords are very disappointed by this fact, but the House spoke clearly last week and this is the only option I can see to fulfil the will of the House.
Ultimately, though, when we rise remains in the hands of noble Lords here. I remind noble Lords that, should they wish to rise earlier, any noble Lord can seek to adjourn the House at any point before 5.30 pm by moving the Motion that the House be now resumed. If that Motion is moved and carried, I will then adjourn the House.
We have previously discussed the particular concerns of different faith groups and accessibility considerations regarding the consequences of rising beyond 3 pm, and I remain very sympathetic to those points. That is why, as discussed in the usual channels, I will provide flexibility on the requirement to stay to the end of the debate, so that if colleagues need or want to leave early, without waiting to hear the contributions from the Front Benches in the debate that they have spoken to, they can. All I ask is that they let their Whip, the Government Whips’ Office or the convenor know that they are leaving.
I will not go over previous statements or emails about the usual courtesy in debates, in order to save time and to allow us to move on to the substance of the Bill, but I trust that noble Lords will move forward in line with the guidance on how the Committee should proceed in the spirit of good self-governance and self-regulation, with respect to all colleagues.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Chief Whip will know that I and others have contacted him about this proposal. I accept that the House made its declaration last Thursday—one has to take that seriously and into account. However, the proposal before us now ensures that those of us who cannot go outside the front door, get into our car and drive home will be effectively excluded from a large part of this debate. It is not good enough, if I may say so, to say that we can be excused from the normal courtesies of staying to the end. The purpose of tabling amendments is to hear the response from the proposer of the Bill and the Minister. I know that we can get up at any point and move an adjournment or the resumption of the House, but I do not think we want to get into a situation where we are bouncing around and looking around to see whether we can win a vote for an adjournment.
We need an agreed situation, and certainly I, with others, will be giving consideration to that over the weekend and perhaps returning to the noble Lord at the beginning of the week with some suggestions that accept and acknowledge the will of the House expressed last Thursday but, at the same time, do not mean that those of us who have to travel a distance are effectively faced with the situation of having to stay over for the weekend, or at least until Saturday. If we are leaving here at or around 6 pm, it is impossible for us to get home, and therefore we would have to stay over.